JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage executed by him in favour of the defendant on Dhanu 18, 1121. Ex. A is the instrument of that mortgage. The defendant contended that though he came into possession as a mortgagee he had subsequently purchased the equity of redemption and that thereupon the mortgage merged in the equity of redemption and thereafter he had been enjoying the property in absolute rights and therefore the suit in redemption did not lie. In the replication the plaintiff pleaded ignorance of the defendant's purchase of equity of redemption. At trial, the deed of sale of equity of redemption to the defendant executed by the plaintiff's father, who is admittedly the karnavan of the illom, was proved as Ex. I. It is dated Chingom 22, 1122. The Munsiff held Ex. I invalid as it had not the written consent of all the major members of the illom as required by S.5 of Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act, III of 1106, and was not proved to be supported by consideration and illom necessity and decreed redemption. On a controversy regarding the residual rent (pattamicham) payable under the mortgage, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal and there the defendant preferred cross objection regarding the decree in redemption. The Sub ordinate Judge held: "On the date of the mortgage there were 3 members in the plaintiff's illom., plaintiff, his father and his father's brother. Plaintiff was in actual possession of the properties and while he was in actual possession he executed Ex. A. the mortgage deed. The plaintiff's father was the karnavan of the illom at that lime. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaint property belonged to the illom. Plaintiff is admittedly a junior member. The karnavan was not made a party to the suit. ..... The karnavan alone can represent the illom. It is admitted that the properties belong to the illom. The plaintiff has not prayed for redemption on behalf of the illom but that makes no difference since it is admittedly illom properties, and since there is no allegation in the plaint that the illom has become divided on the date of plaint. The plaintiff's lather was a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff has not prayed for redemption on behalf of the illom but that makes no difference since it is admittedly illom properties, and since there is no allegation in the plaint that the illom has become divided on the date of plaint. The plaintiff's lather was a necessary party to the suit. Without the karnavan on the party array, the suit is not maintainable and on that ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed ... ...... Plaintiff knew about the sale deed long before the date of this suit. Ex. III dated 5-7-1950 is the copy of an affidavit tiled by this plaintiff in O. S. 221/122 of the Alleppey District Court. In that affidavit Ex.I is specifically referred to. The plaintiff's case is that Ex.I sale deed is invalid ....... (after referring to 1962 KLT 61 F.B.) An alienation of tarwad immovable property by a karnavan unsupported by consideration, tarwad necessity or written consent of all the major members of the tarwad is not void but only voidable at the instance of the tarwad. In the same ruling it has been held that if possession passed with the alienation, the tarwad has necessarily to institute a suit for recovery of the property within the time allowed by law. Where possession was with alienee at the time of the alienation and continued with him after the alienation as in the case of a sale of equity of redemption to a possessory mortgagee, as soon as the mortgagee got a transfer of the equity of redemption from the karnavan of the tarwad his possession as mortgagee ceased and possession as owner commenced. In respect of alienations coupled with transfer of possession the suit cannot be for possession merely. The suit must be to set aside the alienation itself with prayer for possession as a consequential necessary relief ... Since there is no prayer for setting aside the sale deed Ex. 1, it is not necessary to go into the question whether it is valid, binding or not. In the plaint the sale deed is not even referred to. In the circumstances the suit for redemption alone is not 'maintainable.'' He therefore dismissed the suit as not maintainable allowing the cross objection. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. 1, it is not necessary to go into the question whether it is valid, binding or not. In the plaint the sale deed is not even referred to. In the circumstances the suit for redemption alone is not 'maintainable.'' He therefore dismissed the suit as not maintainable allowing the cross objection. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. It has come out in evidence that there was a partition between the plaintiff and his father on November 14, 1955 (though the deed of partition has not been put in proof in this case) and thereunder the suit property had been allotted to the plaintiff. But nothing turns on that partition if the property has been sold by the karnavan of the illom before that partition and the sale stands. 3. Counsel for plaintiff - appellant contended that the suit mortgage having been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant the latter is not entitled to challenge the plaintiff's right to redeem and therefore the suit ought to have been decreed. True, it is not open to a mortgagee, who has been given possession of property under a mortgage, to challenge the title of the mortgagor to execute the mortgage. But the estoppel is only against challenge of the mortgagors right to execute the mortgage, and no further. It is open to a mortgagee to show that the mortgagor's title has subsequently ceased and he himself has validly obtained the equity of redemption of the property. According to the defendant the mortgage was executed by the plaintiff as a member of the iliom and the equity of redemption was sold to him by the karnavan of the illom. The two rights thus got from the illom merged together to vest the entire rights in the property in him. Counsel for plaintiff urged that the mortgage was executed by the plaintiff in his individual capacity. The mortgage deed, Ex. A, does not purport that the property belongs to the mortgagor; on the other hand it refers specifically to the property as. The recitals of consideration in Ex. A also indicate that the mortgage was executed by plaintiff as representative of the illom as they are for discharging the debts of the illom. The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in his observation "The property belongs to the illom and the illom is the mortgagor." 4. The recitals of consideration in Ex. A also indicate that the mortgage was executed by plaintiff as representative of the illom as they are for discharging the debts of the illom. The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in his observation "The property belongs to the illom and the illom is the mortgagor." 4. The question then is whether the sale of the equity of redemption under Ex. I is operative. Speaking for the majority in Mathew v. Ayyappankutty (1962 KLT 61 F.B.) I have held that "an alienation of tarwad immovable property by a karnavan, unsupported by consideration, tarwad necessity or written consent of all the major members of the tarwad, is not void but only voidable at the instance of the tarwad" and further that "if possession passed with the alienation, the tarwad has necessarily to institute a suit for recovery of the property within time allowed by law. The Privy Council has held that in such cases, the suit cannot be for possession merely. The cause of action is not the transfer of possession; it is the alienation that passed the possession; and therefore the suit must be to set aside the alienation itself with a prayer for possession as a consequential or accessory relief. ........ It is therefore clear that, if possession accompanied the alienation and continued unchallenged with the alienee for a period of 12 years, he gets an indefeasible right to the property .......... As soon as the mortgagee got a transfer of the equity of redemption from the karnavan of the tarwad his possession as mortgages ceased and possession as owner commenced. Such possession having been left unchallenged for over 12 years he has obtained an indefeasible title to the property by force of S.28 of the Limitation Act." To say that possession as mortgagee changes into possession as owner implies that the possession after the sale is a different possession from what was had before and therefore the sale has been followed by possession. In strict legal terminology, the possessory mortgagee had immediate possession of the property and his mortgagor had mediate possession; and on execution of the sale of equity of redemption the mediate possession that was with the mortgagor passes to the mortgagee to convert his old possession into a new possession different in character. The transformation of possession thus involves a transfer of possession also. The transformation of possession thus involves a transfer of possession also. It is conceded that no proceeding to avoid the sale of equity of redemption executed by the plaintiff's father as karnavan of the illom has so far been taken. 5. It is then contended that the plaintiff's father was not karnavan of the illom in 1122 as he had surrendered his right of management of the tarwad and his karnavasthanam in 1120 orally to the plaintiff in consequence of a mediation on dissensions in the family. The Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act, III of 1106, came into force on the 1st of Medom 1106, that is to say long before 1120. S.9 and 10 of the Act enact thus: "9. A Karnavan shall be at liberty to give up the right of management by a unilateral surrender evidenced by a registered instrument. 10. (1) (a) No Karnavan shall appoint any agent for managing the Illom properties except by a duly registered instrument; and (b) no Karnavan shall delegate his Karnavasthanam in favour of any person". It then follows that the plea of oral surrender of the right of management of karnavasthanam by plaintiff's father to plaintiff cannot have any force. Such oral surrenders are void in law as been prohibited by S.9 and 10 of the Act. So plaintiff's father has to be held to have continued as karnavan of the illom in 1122 even if the oral surrenders in 1120 pleaded by the plaintiff are true. Ex. I must therefore be held to have been an act of the karnavan of the illom and so long as it stands the plaintiff's claim to redeem the property has to be negatived. If the property was lost to the illom in 1122, the fact that it was included in a subsequent partition among the members of the illom and purported to be allotted to a member thereof cannot by itself bring back the property to him. The plaintiff has therefore no present right to redeem. 6. In the result, I accept the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.